Jose Ernesto Medellin, who at the age of eighteen participated in the gang rapes and murder of two teenage girls, ages 14 and 16, was put to death Tuesday, over the stern objections of the International Court of Justice, the Mexican government, and the Bush Administration, the latter of whom, represented by Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and Attorney General Michael Mukasey, appealed to Texas Governor Rik Perry to delay the execution. Perry refused.
The Bush Administration earlier ordered the execution halted and the case reopened based on a finding that Medellin had not been provided access to representation from the Mexican consulate. This is in violation of the Vienna Conventions, to which the US is a signatory.
Texas appealed the executive decision, and the Supreme Court overturned it by a vote of 5-4 (surprise, surprise). The reason-the treaty was never passed into law by the Congress, therefore the Bush Administration had no legal grounds to stop the execution.
International treaties such as this presume to force the US government to speak for all the states, which is fine in regards to bi-lateral treaties, but when it comes to multi-national treaties, such as the Vienna Convention in question, it proves problematic.
I have no doubt there now will be a push in Congress to pass the treaty, and it will probably be passed by the next Congress.
States, however, should retain their autonomous status as much as possible. Of course, a foreign national should have right to counsel from his consulate, but this was not about the pursuit of justice, it was all about opposition to the death penalty. If this technical problem had not arisen, they would still have objected to his execution. This just provided a convenient excuse to do so, and I'm glad Rick Perry had the stones to tell Bush where to stick it, and that the Supreme Court had the integrity to stand by him.
The Feds can't even come up with a common sense energy policy, why should they presume to force their will, to say nothing of the will of the international community, on the individual states?
The Bush Administration earlier ordered the execution halted and the case reopened based on a finding that Medellin had not been provided access to representation from the Mexican consulate. This is in violation of the Vienna Conventions, to which the US is a signatory.
Texas appealed the executive decision, and the Supreme Court overturned it by a vote of 5-4 (surprise, surprise). The reason-the treaty was never passed into law by the Congress, therefore the Bush Administration had no legal grounds to stop the execution.
International treaties such as this presume to force the US government to speak for all the states, which is fine in regards to bi-lateral treaties, but when it comes to multi-national treaties, such as the Vienna Convention in question, it proves problematic.
I have no doubt there now will be a push in Congress to pass the treaty, and it will probably be passed by the next Congress.
States, however, should retain their autonomous status as much as possible. Of course, a foreign national should have right to counsel from his consulate, but this was not about the pursuit of justice, it was all about opposition to the death penalty. If this technical problem had not arisen, they would still have objected to his execution. This just provided a convenient excuse to do so, and I'm glad Rick Perry had the stones to tell Bush where to stick it, and that the Supreme Court had the integrity to stand by him.
The Feds can't even come up with a common sense energy policy, why should they presume to force their will, to say nothing of the will of the international community, on the individual states?
5 comments:
The president of the US can't stop an execution?
States rights are for the most part a reactionary idea. Problems like crime or air pollution don't respect borders.
Ren-
Medellin was charged with a state crime, murder and rape are not federal crimes unless it involves crossing state lines in the act of committing the crime.
It's a jurisdictional issue. Bush has no jurisdiction in a state matter. Him interfering would be like the governor of a state telling a city council they can't pass laws against jaywalking in their own city, or interfering in a specific case of jaywalking.
Air pollution is a different thing, because it is a national issue. A crime committed against a private citizen of a state within that state's borders is not a national matter.
Actually, I misspoke, I guess Bush could have, if he wanted to take a hell of a lot of heat, either pardoned the guy or commuted his sentence. But really, why should he?
Also, another point. The US was actually founded on states rights. That's actually what the constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights, was all about.
Later on, with the passage of, I think, the Fifteenth Amendment, it evolved to the protection of individuals rights from encroachment by the states, or from the federal government, but at least in the beginning, it was all about states rights.
In fact, the adoption of the US Constitution required passage of the Bill of Rights as a compromise measure, otherwise most, probably even all, of the smaller states especially would never have signed on to it.
So, no, states rights is not a reactionary idea, it's American History 101.
So wait, now you're saying the Bush administration is opposed to the death penalty?
Well, he's not opposed to it, but in this case he was making a diplomatic gesture.
Post a Comment